COURT FILE NO.: 22-89804 DATE: 2023/06/20

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

DEIRDRE MOORE Plaintiff – and – ADDELMAN BAUM GILBERT ROBINSON LLP and SNIR LAW OFFICE Defendants

Counsel: Plaintiff is self-represented (responding party) Craig O’Brien, Counsel for the defendants, Addelman Baum Gilbert Robinson LLP (moving parties) James Cook, Counsel for the defendant, Snir Law Office (responding party)

HEARD: June 8, 2023 (By videoconference)

RULING ON MOTION

Introduction

[1] Deirdre Moore seeks $1,750,000 in pecuniary damages from each of two law firms by which she was formerly represented in criminal and family proceedings. The claims against each law firm are based in “breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional suffering, negligent infliction of emotional suffering and/or malice.” [1] Ms. Moore’s originating process was served on the defendant law firms in early February 2023.

[2] Approximately two weeks after the Pleading was served, counsel for Addelman Baum Gilbert Robertson LLP (“Addelman”) delivered a notice of intent to defend on behalf of their client. At the same time, Addelman’s counsel requested,

a) an indulgence with respect to service of a statement of defence because counsel had not yet received their client’s file; and

b) that Ms. Moore provide counsel with two weeks’ notice of any steps Ms. Moore planned to take that would be contrary to Addelman’s interest.

[3] Without providing the two weeks’ notice requested, and despite further email communication from Addelman’s counsel about the timing of delivery of a statement of defence, on March 21, 2023, Ms. Moore noted Addelman in default. On March 30, 2023, upon learning their client had been noted in default, Addelman’s counsel, (a) provided Ms. Moore with a statement of defence, and (b) asked Ms. Moore to consent to the statement of defence being filed.

[4] Ms. Moore refused to consent to the Addelman statement of defence being filed. Addelman brings this motion for an order (a) setting aside the March 21, 2023 noting in default, and (b) extending to 20 days from the date of this ruling, the deadline by which Addelman is to deliver (serve and file) their statement of defence.

[5] There are several matters to address regarding the record before setting out a chronology of the proceeding to date and addressing the legal principles relevant to a motion of this kind.

The Record

[6] The motion record includes a notice of motion and an affidavit from a paralegal employed by the lawyers of record for Addelman (“the paralegal” and “the paralegal affidavit”). The paralegal affidavit includes, as an exhibit, a copy of the amended statement of claim. A stamp on the back page of that document identifies that the originating process was amended by a court registrar on January 24, 2023. The amendment is said to be made pursuant to r. 26.02 (a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.

[7] The motion record does not include a copy of the Pleading. There is no mention of the Pleading in the paralegal affidavit. A draft statement of defence, dated March 30, 2023, is an exhibit to the paralegal affidavit. Para. 1 of the draft statement of defence includes a denial of “all allegations made against [Addelman] in the fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, save as expressly admitted herein”. In the factum delivered on Addelman’s behalf, their counsel refers only to the “Amended Statement of Claim” served on January 24, 2023.

[8] In summary, based only on the moving party’s record, it appears that the originating process to which Addelman was, as of March 2023 or later, required to respond was the January 24, 2023 amended statement of claim.

a) Exhibits 1, 2, and 3

[9] Two affidavits from Ms. Moore are before the court. The first affidavit was sworn on May 25, 2023 (“affidavit no. 1”). It is undisputed that affidavit no. 1 was delivered in response to the motion record.

[10] Affidavit no. 1 is nine pages and includes 25 numbered paragraphs. Ms. Moore includes hyperlinks to at least 50 documents. Ms. Moore describes 49 of those documents as exhibits and the other document as “Email, NOM & AFF”. Ms. Moore makes no reference to the Pleading in any one of the 25 paragraphs of affidavit no. 1.

[11] Attached to the first Moore affidavit are two lists of exhibits. One list addresses the documents referred to as exhibits in the order in which they are mentioned in the affidavit. The other list addresses the documents referred to as exhibits in what Ms. Moore describes as chronological order. Neither list includes the Pleading.

[12] The second affidavit from Ms. Moore was sworn on June 1, 2023 (“affidavit no. 2”). On the return of the motion, Ms. Moore informed the court that she served affidavit no. 2 in response to the factum delivered on Addelman’s behalf – specifically to address errors in the Addelman factum. With Addelman’s consent, Ms. Moore was granted leave to rely on the substantive content of (but not the exhibits to) affidavit no. 2. The order made at the conclusion of this ruling reflects a term to that effect.

[13] Affidavit no. 2 is three pages and includes seven numbered paragraphs. Ms. Moore includes hyperlinks to 11 documents, which she describes as exhibits. Ms. Moore informed the court that the hyperlinked documents do not include a copy of the Pleading or the affidavits of service for the Pleading.

[14] Counsel for the defendant, Snir Law Office (“Snir”) attended on the return of the motion. No materials were delivered by Snir in response to the motion. Snir’s counsel informed the court that the Snir statement of defence was served (a) on February 13, 2023, and (b) in response to the Pleading.

[15] On the return of the motion, neither Addelman’s counsel nor Ms. Moore could explain why their respective materials did not include a copy of the Pleading. Counsel and Ms. Moore were given an opportunity to review the Pleading and the related affidavits of service. All parties consented to (a) those documents being made numbered exhibits, and (b) completing their respective submissions on the basis that if the noting in default is set aside, the Addelman statement of defence to be delivered will respond to the Pleading (and not to the January 24, 2023 amended statement of claim).

[16] In the process of making the Pleading and the related affidavits of service exhibits, Snir’s counsel brought to the attention of the court an email he and others received from Ms. Moore on February 9, 2023. The individuals to whom that email was sent include Joseph Addelman and Gonen Snir. A copy of the Pleading is attached to Ms. Moore’s February 9, 2023 email. For the sake of completeness of the record related to the Pleading, the parties consented to a copy of that email being made a numbered exhibit on the motion.

[17] The record upon which the motion is determined includes the following documents:

• The fresh as amended amended statement of claim dated February 7, 2023 (Exhibit 1 – the Pleading);
• Two affidavits of service with respect to personal service of the Pleading on the two defendant law firms (Exhibit 2); and
• The February 9, 2023 email from Ms. Moore to various individuals including counsel for the Snir law firm, Gonen Snir, and Joseph Addelman, to which is attached a copy of the Pleading (Exhibit 3).

b) The State of the Pleadings

[18] As set out at para. 13 of Intact Insurance Company v. Kissel, 2015 ONCA 205, 125 O.R. (3d) 365, when exercising its discretion to set aside a noting of default, the court is required to assess “the context and factual situation of the case”. The context and factual situation include the state of the pleadings at the date of the noting of default.

[19] It was incumbent on the moving party to ensure that the record before the court accurately reflects the state of the pleadings on March 21, 2023. The motion record should have included copies of the three versions of the statement of claim, the Addelman notice of intent to defend (which is in the motion record), [2] and the Snir statement of defence.

[20] I note, as a matter of form, that the pleadings in an action are part of the record in the proceeding. As such, it is inappropriate to attach a pleading from the subject action as an exhibit to an affidavit. A pleading should be included in a motion record or in a responding motion record as a discreet document, tabbed separately from the notice of motion, a supporting affidavit, or a responding affidavit.

c) Hyperlinking Exhibits to an Affidavit

[21] I return to the two Moore affidavits and Ms. Moore’s use of hyperlinks. There is nothing in the Rules of Civil Procedure or in the governing notice to the profession which permits a party to rely on hyperlinks to attach exhibits to an affidavit. Ms. Moore is self-represented, but she is not an inexperienced litigant.

[22] For example, she was involved in family litigation for several years – the litigation in which Ms. Moore was represented at one time by Snir. As another example, at para. 7 of her first affidavit, Ms. Moore refers to a Child, Youth and Family Services Act (“CYFSA”) proceeding to which she was a party. As further examples, Ms. Moore refers in her affidavits to a Divisional Court proceeding (affidavit no. 1, para. 9a), a motion by Snir in 2020 to be removed as Ms. Moore’s lawyer of record in the family and CYFSA proceedings (affidavit no. 1, para. 12d), and the decision of Justice Gomery on a Rule 21 motion in a separate proceeding (affidavit no. 1, para. 16).

[23] Ms. Moore has prior experience in family, CYFSA, and civil proceedings – dating back to at least 2019. Ms. Moore is not entitled to an indulgence from the court in the form of relief from the obligation of filing materials which comply with the Rules and with the governing notice to the profession. For that reason, the court considers only the text of the two Moore affidavits and disregards the documents accessible by hyperlinks.

[24] I now turn to the history of the proceeding to date.

Chronology

[25] The chronology of the action, set out below, is based on (a) the paralegal affidavit, (b) the two Moore affidavits, and (c) Exhibits 1, 2, and 3:

Jul. 29, 2022 - The statement of claim is issued. The prayer for relief set out in para. 1 includes “Pecuniary damages from [Addelman] $1,750,000 due to its breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional suffering, negligent infliction of emotional suffering and/or malice.” This passage from the statement of claim appears as it does in the original document;

Jan. 23, 2023 - The statement of claim is amended pursuant to r. 26.02.

Jan. 24, 2023 - The amended statement of claim is served on Addelman.

Feb. 7, 2023 - The statement of claim is amended again, pursuant to r. 26.02 (a), and is renamed “fresh as amended amended statement of claim” (i.e., the Pleading).

Feb. 8, 2023 - The Pleading is served personally on Addelman.

Feb. 9, 2023 - The Pleading is served personally on Snir.

Feb. 9, 2023 - Ms. Moore sends an email to Addelman, Snir, and counsel for Snir, to which she attaches a copy of the Pleading.

Feb. 13, 2023 - The Snir statement of defence is served on Ms. Moore. [3]

Feb. 23, 2023 - Addelman’s notice of intent to defend is served on Ms. Moore. In the cover email to Ms. Moore, the paralegal says, “We would be obliged if you would grant an indulgence with respect to service of a Statement of Defence. In this regard, we have not yet received our client’s file. We trust that you will take no steps contrary to our client’s interest without providing our office with two weeks’ notice. Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.”

Feb. 24, 2023 - In response to receipt of an electronic version of the notice of intent to defend, Ms. Moore sends an email to the paralegal. In her email, Ms. Moore says, “Do you intend to send me ALL documents in duplicate in order to run up the cost award for your client after your crooked judge is secured? Or, just this one?”

Feb. 25 to Mar. 25, 2023 - Joseph Addelman is away from the office on vacation, during which time emails and voicemails received by him are not reviewed. Addelman’s counsel is unable to confirm instructions regarding a statement of defence.

Mar. 9, 2023 - In an email to the paralegal, Ms. Moore says, “Shyster’s Statement of Defence is due tomorrow; we can’t wait to see it! [website link omitted] I am hoping to refer to it during a podcast over the weekend; so, please try to get it in early so I can upload as much evidence to my Errors, Omissions & Malicious Obfuscation Analysis before Sabbath starts on Saturday.”

Mar. 14, 2023 - In an email to the paralegal, Ms. Moore says, “I’d really rather publicly expose your Shyster than note him in default. Has the ink dried on his “files” yet?

Mar. 21, 2023 - In an email sent to the paralegal at 9:17 a.m., Ms. Moore says, “I trust that you had a lovely vacation. I will be filing the Affidavits of Service soon. Should I note you in default as well?”

Mar. 21, 2023 - The paralegal responds to Ms. Moore by email at 9:43 a.m. with the following message: “Our client is out of the country right now, but we intend to defend and will be able to file our defence on or before April 14th, 2023. If you are going to note us in default, please advise and we’ll serve a defence with the understanding that we will be amending same following instructions from our client.”

Mar. 21, 2023 - Ms. Moore notes Addelman in default.

Mar. 30, 2023 - Ms. Moore sends an email to counsel for the defendant, Snir Law Office (“Snir”). The attachments to that email include a copy of the March 21, 2023 request for Addelman to be noted in default and a March 30, 2023 “Request for a Summary Judgment”. Ms. Moore advises Snir’s counsel that she will follow up with a discovery plan.

Mar. 30, 2023 - Snir’s counsel informs Addelman’s counsel that Addelman has been noted in default.

Mar. 30, 2023 - At 4:20 p.m., the paralegal sends an email to Ms. Moore, attaching a statement of defence. In his email, the paralegal says, “Please find attached the Defence of [Addelman] in the above referenced matter served upon you pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure. I see that you have noted us in default, please advise if you will sign a consent for us to file this Defence.”

Mar. 30, 2023 - At 4:32 p.m., Addelman’s counsel sends an email to Ms. Moore advising that unless Ms. Moore consents, by April 3, 2023, to the noting in default of Addelman being set aside, Addelman will (a) bring a motion to set aside the noting in default, (b) seek costs of the motion, and (c) seek a stay of the proceeding until costs of the motion, if Ms. Moore is ordered to pay same, are paid. Addelman’s counsel asserts that rather than speeding up the process, the noting in default of Addelman “will surely slow [the proceeding] down.” In the concluding sentence of his email, Addelman’s counsel requests that Ms. Moore consent to the setting aside of the noting in default.

Mar. 30, 2023 - In an email sent by Ms. Moore to Addelman’s counsel, at 6:17 p.m., she states, “I was under no obligation to consent to [your client’s] further lawlessness”. Ms. Moore also says that, because she is aware of Addelman’s association with organized crime, she is “obliged pursuant to S.21(1) [of the Criminal Code] to put [an] end to [Addelman’s] criminal activity.” Ms. Moore concludes the substantive body of her email by asserting that Addelman has chosen to continue to participate in “the ongoing defrauding of me” and that such conduct is “a crime in progress”.

Apr. 4, 2023 - Addelman’s motion record, including the notice of motion and the paralegal’s affidavit is served on Ms. Moore.

[26] As noted in the preceding section of this ruling, Ms. Moore delivered a responding affidavit (affidavit no. 1). The parties each delivered a factum and Ms. Moore delivered affidavit no. 2.

The Issues

[27] The issues to be determined on this motion are whether the noting of default for Addelman is to be set aside and, if so, on what terms.

The Law

[28] The setting aside of a noting of default is governed by r. 19.03(1), which provides as follows: “The noting of default may be set aside by the court on such terms as are just.”

[29] The court has a broad discretion in the exercise of which factors it takes into consideration when determining a motion to set aside a noting of default: see, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 706 v. Bardmore Developments Ltd. (1991), 3 O.R. (3d) 278, [1991] O.J. No. 717 (C.A.) (“Bardmore”). As explained in Intact, at para. 13, and Bardmore, the factors which the court may consider include, but are not limited to, the following factors:

• The context and factual situation of the case;
• The behaviour of the parties;
• The reasons for delay on the part of the moving party;
• The complexity and the value of the claim; and
• The prejudice the party relying on the noting of default would suffer if the noting of default is set aside.

[30] Only in extreme cases should a defendant noted in default be required to demonstrate that they have an arguable defence on the merits: see, Bardmore and Intact, at para. 13.

Issue No. 1 – Is the noting of default to be set aside?

[31] The Pleading was served on Addelman on February 8, 2023. Because Addelman served a notice of intent to defend, they had 30 days from February 8, 2023 within which to serve their statement of defence. That 30-day period ended on March 10, 2023. I find that the delay, on Addelman’s part, before they attempted to serve their statement of defence, was 20 days.

[32] Addelman submits, and Ms. Moore agrees, that 20 days is not an extensive delay. In her submissions Ms. Moore described the delay as “short”. Ms. Moore’s concern is that there is “no real excuse” even for the short, 20-day delay. Ms. Moore submits that there is no reason why Addelman’s statement of defence could not have been finalized for delivery in the 17 days between the date of service and the date on which Joseph Addelman’s vacation began.

[33] Ms. Moore’s submission about what could or should have happened in that 17-day period, overlooks the circumstances in which Addelman’s counsel found themselves as of February 23, 2023. On that date, Addelman’s counsel (a) served a notice of intent to defend, (b) informed Ms. Moore that they did not yet have the client’s file, and (c) requested that Ms. Moore not take any steps against their client’s interests, unless she first provides two weeks’ notice of her intention to do so. Without the benefit of the client’s underlying file, it was not possible, prior to Joseph Addelman’s departure for vacation, for Addelman’s counsel to finalize a statement of defence for delivery. Contrary to Ms. Moore’s submission, I find that there is a “real excuse” for the delay to March 30, 2023, in the attempt to deliver a statement of defence on Addelman’s behalf.

[34] On February 23, 2023, Addelman’s counsel requested that they be extended a professional courtesy – namely, that Ms. Moore provide two weeks’ notice in the event she intended to take a step contrary to Addelman’s interest. I find that request was, (a) reasonable in the circumstances; (b) made in an effort to deal with the completion of the exchange of pleadings in an efficient manner; and (c) made with a view to avoiding the delay and expense that would arise in the event Ms. Moore noted Addelman in default without providing notice of her intention to do so.

[35] The fact that Ms. Moore is self-represented does not excuse her from litigating in the same manner that would be expected of a lawyer. In that regard, I refer to chapter 7 of the Law Society of Ontario Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, s. 7.2-1.1 requires that, “A lawyer shall agree to reasonable requests concerning trial dates, adjournments, the waiver of procedural formalities, and similar matters that do not prejudice the rights of the client.”

[36] The request made by Addelman’s counsel on February 23, 2023, for notice of an intention to note Addelman in default, falls within the scope of “reasonable requests” described in s. 7.2-1.1. Had Ms. Moore been represented by counsel when that request was made, her counsel would have had a professional obligation to accede to the request. There is no reason for Ms. Moore not to have acceded to the request.

[37] I also refer to s. 7.2-2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. That section states the following: “A lawyer shall avoid sharp practice and shall not take advantage of or act without fair warnings upon slips, irregularities, or mistakes on the part of other legal practitioners not going to the merits or involving the sacrifice of client’s rights.” Had the noting of default on March 21, 2023, been carried out by a lawyer representing Ms. Moore, that lawyer would have committed an act of “sharp practice” within the meaning of s. 7.2-2. Ms. Moore’s status as a self-represented litigant does not entitle her to resort to “sharp practice” in her conduct in this proceeding.

[38] I also consider the complexity of the proceeding:

• The action relates to the fulfillment of professional obligations by two law firms and/or lawyers to their client;
• Ms. Moore advances several causes of action including (a) breach of fiduciary duty, (b) intentional infliction of emotional suffering, (c) negligent infliction of emotional suffering, and (d) an element of fraud; and
• Ms. Moore claims unspecified “pecuniary damages” totalling $1,750,000 from Addelman.

[39] Ms. Moore submits that by expanding upon the allegations made against Addelman in the amended statement of claim (dated January 24, 2023), she has, in the Pleading, simplified and clarified her claims against Addelman.

[40] That submission is based on Ms. Moore’s belief that the Pleading explicitly and definitively demonstrates the merits of her claims against both Addelman and Snir. Ms. Moore’s belief in that regard demonstrates that she does not understand the purpose a statement of claim is intended to serve – to “contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for the claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved”: r. 25.06(1).

[41] I next consider the nature of the allegations made against Addelman. The allegations relate not only to Addelman’s fulfillment of their professional obligations but also to Addelman’s alleged involvement in collusion with other professionals, members of the judiciary, and other justice system participants. Ms. Moore alleges the collusion was carried out with the aim of negatively impacting her interests in various proceedings.

[42] I find that it would be significantly prejudicial to Addelman if they were not permitted to defend the serious allegations made against them in which the damages claimed are $1,750,000.

[43] Ms. Moore has not provided the court with any evidence of prejudice that she (a) suffered by reason of the delay from March 10 to 30, 2023, or (b) will suffer if Addelman is permitted to deliver a statement of defence in a timely manner.

[44] In his capacity as an officer of the court, Snir’s counsel informed the court that no steps in the proceeding have been taken subsequent to the delivery of the Snir pleading and the noting of default of Addelman. Ms. Moore acknowledged that information is accurate.

[45] Ms. Moore’s concern is that if Addelman is permitted to deliver a statement of defence, they will thereafter bring a motion under Rule 21 for the claims against them to be struck because they are frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Ms. Moore points to paragraph 15 of the draft statement of defence included in the record. In that paragraph, Addelman alleges that, “The within action against Mr. Addelman and his law firm is a collateral attack, is untenable, frivolous, vexatious, and is an abuse of process.”

[46] Ms. Moore’s concern about a Rule 21 motion being brought is such that she asked the court, in the event the noting of default is set aside, to prohibit Addelman from bringing a Rule 21 motion. Ms. Moore cited no authority in support of that request.

[47] There is no reason to prohibit Addelman from defending the claim in any manner they deem appropriate, and which is permitted by the Rules.

[48] Ms. Moore also submits that she is prejudiced because Addelman’s delay in the delivery of a statement of defence was “orchestrated” to permit Addelman to benefit, in the defence of this action, from steps being taken in at least one other civil proceeding (in which Ms. Moore is a party) to have Ms. Moore declared a vexatious litigant. I find that submission to be entirely unsupported by the evidence and entirely lacking in merit.

[49] In summary, I find that there is and will be no prejudice to Ms. Moore if (a) the noting of default is set aside, and (b) Addelman is permitted to deliver a statement of defence in a timely manner.

[50] Last, I find that the matter before the court does not fall within the scope of “extreme cases” for which the defendant noted in default must demonstrate an arguable defence on the merits.

[51] For all of the reasons discussed above, I conclude that the noting of default of Addelman shall be set aside.

Issue No. 2 – On what terms is the noting of default to be set aside?

[52] The only copy of a pleading from Ms. Moore included in the motion record is of the January 24, 2023 amended statement of claim. There is no mention of the Pleading in the motion record. I draw an inference and find that the statement of defence included in the motion record was prepared in response to the amended statement of claim (i.e., not in response to the Pleading).

[53] The statement of defence is an exhibit to the paralegal affidavit. The paralegal refers to the statement of defence in support of his statement, at para. 12 of his affidavit, that Addelman has a meritorious defence to Ms. Moore’s claims against them. The implication is that, if the noting of default is set aside, Addelman will deliver a pleading in accordance with the statement of defence included in the motion record.

[54] That statement of defence does not, however, necessarily respond to the allegations in the Pleading that are not included in the amended statement of claim. It would be unfair to Addelman to require them to rely on the statement of defence before the court on this motion.

[55] For those reasons, the order made in the Disposition section of this ruling permits Addelman to deliver “a” statement of defence (i.e., as opposed to the statement of defence attached as an exhibit to the paralegal affidavit).

Disposition

[56] I make the following order:

1. The plaintiff is granted leave to rely on the substantive contents of, but not the exhibits to, the affidavit sworn by her on June 1, 2023.
2. The noting of default of the defendant, Addelman Baum Gilbert Robinson LLP, shall be set aside.
3. The defendant, Addelman Baum Gilbert Robinson LLP, shall, within 20 days of the date of this ruling, deliver a statement of defence.

[57] Last, I will address the issue of costs of the motion.

Costs

[58] For the following reasons, there shall be no costs of the motion.

[59] As the successful party, Addelman might ordinarily be entitled to their costs of the motion. In addition, the court might award Addelman their costs of the motion because of Ms. Moore’s conduct surrounding the noting of default (both in taking that step and in refusing to consent to a statement of defence being filed).

[60] I balance against those factors Addelman’s failure to include a copy of the Pleading in the motion record. As a result of that failure,

• not all of the relevant documents were initially before the court on the motion;
• the hearing of the motion was protracted while the court, Ms. Moore, and counsel identified the Pleading and addressed introduction of it into evidence on the motion;
• the hearing of the motion was protracted to permit Addelman’s counsel and Ms. Moore to make submissions on the issue of delay based on the date of service of the Pleading as opposed to the date of service of the amended statement of claim; and
• both on the return of the motion and in this ruling the court was required to address matters/issues that it would not otherwise have been required to address.

[61] The conduct of Ms. Moore and Addelman is such that neither of them is entitled to their costs of the motion.

[62] Snir did not deliver any materials in response to the motion. Snir’s counsel attended the motion in an observational capacity only. Snir’s counsel made no submissions on the motion.

[63] The court is grateful to Snir’s counsel for making copies of the documents that became Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 available to the court, Ms. Moore, and Addelman’s counsel. The provision of that assistance does not justify an award of costs in Snir’s favour on the motion (even if framed as “in the cause”).

[64] In summary, there shall be no costs of the motion.

Madam Justice Sylvia Corthorn Date: June 20, 2023

Footnotes

[1] Fresh as amended amended statement of claim dated February 7, 2023 (“the Pleading”).

[2] Ms. Moore refers to the Snir statement of defence in para. 15 of affidavit no. 1 and in para. 1a of affidavit no. 2.

[3] This date is an approximate date.